Bizman granted bail in ₹7.42-cr ‘government quota’ plot fraud

The accused, in custody since June 2025, “cannot be kept under incarceration for indefinite period” when the charge-sheet has been filed, evidence has already been seized, and the case remains at the stage of procedural compliance, the court said

MUMBAI: A special Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act court on Friday granted bail to businessman Purushottam Prabhakar Chavan, who is accused of cheating investors of ₹7.42 crore by offering purported government quota plots at subsidised rates, holding that prolonged incarceration cannot be sustained once investigation is complete but trial has not even commenced.

Bizman granted bail in ₹7.42-cr ‘government quota’ plot fraud

The accused, in custody since June 2025, “cannot be kept under incarceration for indefinite period” when the charge-sheet has been filed, evidence has already been seized, and the case remains at the stage of procedural compliance, the court said.

The case arises from a first information report (FIR) registered against Chavan, husband of an Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, by the Economic Offences Wing of Mumbai police. According to the FIR, the businessman, along with associates and impersonators posing as government officials – including persons presented as connected with the sub-registrar’s office in Thane – hatched a conspiracy to induce investors by offering them plots purportedly available under government quota at below-market rates. Chavan and his accomplices sought to build credibility by producing forged development rights certificates linked to municipal authorities in Pune and Thane, and showcasing a fabricated contract for supply of t-shirts to the Maharashtra Police Academy in Nashik, the FIR said.

The prosecution claimed that these documents were falsely represented as genuine, and forged land records were shown as registered at the sub-registrar’s office in Thane. Photocopies of these forged documents were circulated among investors to secure their confidence, resulting in the collection and misappropriation of more than ₹7.42 crore, the prosecution said.

The defence argued that Chavan was arrested on June 18 last year and had remained in custody since, including a period when he was also under investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a related matter. Investigation in the present case was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and all material evidence – documentary as well as electronic, including bank account statements – had already been seized and secured by the investigating agency, with relevant accounts frozen, the defence said.

The case could be tried by a metropolitan magistrate and was not punishable with death or life imprisonment, the defence said. Referring to Chavan being granted bail by the high court in the ED case on grounds of prolonged incarceration, they argued that Chavan’s continued custody in the present case, despite completion of investigation, would amount to punitive detention without trial.

Opposing bail, the state contended that there existed sufficient material demonstrating Chavan’s involvement in the fraud, and raised apprehensions that he may tamper with evidence or dispose of properties if released.

The court, however, rejected this line of opposition as insufficient with regard to the facts of the case. It held that once investigation was complete and the evidentiary record was secured, the risk of tampering could be addressed through conditions, and could not justify indefinite incarceration. Despite “sufficient custody”, the investigating agency had not recovered any property from the accused, and all relevant material was already in its possession, the court observed.

The court ruled that Chavan’s continued incarceration, approaching one year, coupled with the absence of any immediate prospect of trial, weighed decisively in favour of bail. Even the existence of criminal antecedents cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny bail in such circumstances, particularly where offences are triable by a magistrate and the prosecution’s evidence stands secured, the court clarified.